I have never understood why Larry Evans cannot speak for himself in this
forum. How do we know Mr Parr has the right to speak for him?
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)


wrote in message
ups.com...
KINGSTON'S REVIVES HIS SMEAR CAMPAIGN

"I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw
games to each other." -- GM Reuben Fine explaining to Larry Evans why
he declined his invitation to the 1948 World Championship held in
Holland and the USSR.

It's well known by anyone who followed these threads that Edward
Winter and his disciple Taylor Kingston are sworn enemies of GM Larry
Evans. To ignore questions about whether he ever used bogus screen
names to praise his own arguments or his offer to shovel dirt about
political opponents to Rev. Walker, NMnot Kingston has seized upon
the phrase that "most scholars" agree with GM Evans' theory that Keres
was forced to throw games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World
Championship.

If Mr. Kingston wishes to dredge up this topic again and play the
numbers game, let him cite the scholars who disagree with GM Evans.
Now, then, to scholars agreeing with GM Evans.

First, we dismiss Edward Winter as a scholar of chess history, as
opposed to an antiquarian (for the distinction, consult Herbert
Butterfield's "Man on His Past") if by scholar one means a person who
has written histories or memoirs about the game. Winter has done
neither. He has produced a book of annotated documents on Capablanca
and compendia of Q&A plus some essays that were not very good. The man
writes in turgid, mannered Victorianese -- an easy style to emulate.

Scholars, if one may use the word in connection with chess, who have
supported the Evans position include GM Ray Keene, whose Illustrated
History of Chess is more ambitious on the subject than anything done
by Winter. My recollection is that Tony Saidy also supported Evans'
position, and his work in terms of understanding and style is in the
major leagues when compared with a Winter.

The book on the 1948 World Championship by arbiter Harry Golombek also
strongly implies that Keres threw games. This writer, who has
attempted history and won several awards such as the 1996 Book of the
Year with Arnold Denker, has no doubt that GM Evans is correct.
Charges about the fix have been around ever since 1948 but 5-time U.S.
Champion Evans was the first to deconstruct all Keres-Botvinnik games
(without help from computers in 1996) documenting suspicious moves.

Indeed, NMnot Taylor Kingston, were he a scholar of chess history,
could be included as one who ended up agreeing with GM Evans ("the
Commies did it") though it took the slowish lad a mite long to come
around.

I have not clicked as yet the Winter reference provided by NMnot
Kingston, but if it is the scurrilous and dishonest article attacking
GM Evans in 2001, then perhaps it's time to repost several of my long
essays refuting that article where I noted how Winter doctored
"evidence." The technique was interesting, and I exposed it.

WE NOTE THAT NMNOT KINGSTON still has not answered whether he posted
under other names in PRAISE OF HIMSELF. He claimed that practice, by
the way, as an example of his having "standards." Yes, really he did.

NAILING ANOTHER KINGSTON LIE

In a reply to Kingston's "confidential" letter, playwright Richard
Laurie noted: "Finally, I am troubled by your bald assertion that you
are not aware of the battle between Evans and Winter. I am troubled
because I have known for months that Larry Evans contacted you in
preparing his rebuttal to Mr.Winter's remarks as printed in Chess
Life, October 2001. Further, it is my understanding and has been for
months, that you told Evans you sided with Winter on the whole. Please
clear up this seeming
contradiction." -- Richard Laurie

This topic was rehashed here long ago, as demonstrated by my posting
of 2/18/02.

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Parrthenon)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:40:20 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 8:40 am
Subject: Keres-Botvinnik 1948

KERES-BOTVINNIK

TWO SMOKING GUNS

By Larry Parr


Evans concludes: "The truth about Botvinnik and Keres may never be
known, but until a smoking gun is found in KGB files, I firmly believe
the games
themselves contain the best evidence of a fix." -- Quoted by Larry
Tapper

Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on
Keres
seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor
Kingston

CASE CLOSED!?

While in London for the Kasparov-Kramnik title match in 2000, GM Evans
told
me that he asked GM Yuri Averbach, who lived through the Soviet era,
if he was
going to shed any new light on the Keres-Botvinnik controversy in his
memoirs.
Averbach said he had nothing new to offer.

In his Further Review of the Evidence at ChessCafe, Mr. Kingston
mentioned
two smoking guns (also cited by GM Evans in Chess Life) that erased
his
lingering doubts about whether Keres was coerced. Here are a few
pertinent
excerpts:

1. Briton Ken Whyld, co-author of The Oxford Companion to Chess, is
another
highly respected chess historian. His contribution to this discussion
is best
expressed in his own words: "Keres told me in private, when he was my
guest in
Nottingham, that he was not ordered to lose those games to Botvinnik,
and was
not playing to lose. But he had been given a broader instruction that
if Botvinnik failed to become World Champion, it must not be the fault
of Keres."

This constitutes, I believe, an important corroboration of Cafferty's
thesis,
perhaps even a long-sought "smoking gun." The Krabbé Diary was its
first
publication. That Whyld would keep it secret for nearly 38 years
puzzled me. In
another e-mail dated 11 August 2001 he clarified, and hedged
somewhat:

"I never regarded it as something to repeat in his lifetime, although
he was
probably secure enough in his later years. Later I thought it not
worth
repeating. Firstly there is only my word for it, and secondly he might
not have
been telling the truth."

Mr. Whyld is becomingly modest, and a skeptic might focus on the doubt
of that
last sentence, but I am inclined to take the story at face value.

2. A few months before Whyld's revelation, another relevant item
appeared on
Krabbé's site. Item #42, posted 10 December 1999, describes an
interview
with Botvinnik, by Dutch journalist Max Pam with émigré GM Genna
Sosonko
translating. Pam apparently did not realize the significance of what
he had,
for he did not publicize it widely to the chess world. Instead, the
interview
appeared only in the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland (20 August 1991),
a
general-interest weekly not devoted to chess. It attracted little
attention
until Krabbé translated a portion into English and put it on his site
over 8
years later.

In the key passage, Botvinnik was asked if he had ever known of
collusion
between Soviet players. His reply:


"I have experienced myself that orders were given. In 1948 I played
with Keres,
Smyslov, Reshevsky and Euwe for the world title. After the first half
of the
tournament, which took place in the Netherlands, it was clear that I
was going
to be world champion." (Note: strictly speaking, Holland was venue for
the
first 2/5 of the tournament, not "the first half."

After two laps, eight rounds, when the contestants had played each
other twice, the score stood Botvinnik 6, Reshevsky 4½, Keres and
Smyslov 4, Euwe 1½.)


"During the second half in Moscow something unpleasant happened. At a
very high
level, it was proposed that the other Soviet players [i.e. Keres and
Smyslov]
would lose to me on purpose, in order to make sure there was going to
be a
Soviet World Champion. It was Stalin personally who proposed
this." (emphasis
added)


Amazing! For the first time, Botvinnik publicly states the existence
of a
conspiracy, with orders from the very top, none other than Stalin
himself.
Obviously, we have here the long-sought smoking gun.

Or do we? The rest of Botvinnik's statement clouds the pictu "But
of
course I refused! It was an intrigue against me, to belittle me. A
ridiculous
proposal, only made to put down the future World Champion. In some
circles,
people preferred Keres to be World Champion. It was disgraceful,
because I had
already proven by and large that I was stronger at that time than
Keres and
Smyslov."


Bizarre. The fix proposal was intended to insult him, and perhaps to
help
Keres? Nonsensical, as Krabbé notes. Botvinnik had something of a
persecution
complex, and it seems to be badly skewing his interpretation of events
here.
And what of the claim that he refused? Not his only such; see for
example
Achieving the Aim, p. 43, where he rejects Krylenko's suggestion that
Rabinovitch throw him a game in 1935. But the two incidents are not
entirely
comparable. Rejecting a suggestion by Krylenko is perhaps conceivable,
but
refusing orders from Stalin himself? Hard to believe. In most areas of
policy
Stalin was no more flexible than Hitler, and at least as brutal. Was
chess so
different, or Botvinnik so privileged?


So do we accept Botvinnik 100%? Do we dismiss it all as the grousings
of a
grumpy paranoid octogenarian, or pick and choose what to believe? I
prefer to
avoid speculation on each detail. Clearly it is at very least another
confirmation of the basic thesis of official pro-Botvinnik pressure.
Coupled
with Whyld's testimony, it shows, at a minimum, that there was an
officially
desired outcome, and both Keres and Botvinnik knew what it was.


There is another argument for at least partial acceptance. Botvinnik
's admission of a fix order is so different, so at odds with
everything he and Soviet officialdom have said before, that it is very
hard to explain unless it were a fact.

TAYLOR KINGSTON'S REPLY WHERE HE POSED AS XYLOTHIST (among a host of
other pseudonyms):


Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: (Xylothist)
Date: 18 Feb 2002 19:48:03 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 18 2002 11:48 am
Subject: Politicising History in Chess Life and ChessCafe

"Such are the standards of those holding forth on the censored
ChessCafe
bulletin board." - Larry Parr.

Larry Parr talking of "standards" is like Bill Clinton lecturing on
marital
fidelity. He disparages others' education, yet he allows himself
double
standards a college freshman could see through, and repeatedly
violates
standards of civil discourse by resorting to personal insult. To
enumerate:


1. He complains that "Xylothist" is a pseudonym. This is rich coming
from
"Wmiketwo," under which alias Parr has made postings praising himself
while
insulting others on this forum. [This is a lie. I never posted under
any bogus screen names and offered a lie detector challenge for big
bucks declined by Mr. Kingston.]

2. Parr claims Taylor Kingston made the "silly" statement that "no one
dared to
defy Stalin's orders if he were in the dictator's grasp." I responded
by saying
Kingston had not said this, but showed that Parr himself had said
something
very like that. Parr complains that was taken out of context. Yet
when
challenged to present the Kingston quote he refers to, Parr presented
a passage
that, in context, clearly applies specifically to Botvinnik, and
cannot
reasonably be construed to include Kapitsa or others. It is Parr who
uses the
absolute terms "no one" and "any person," not Kingston.

Parr wants it both ways. He complains about "context," yet he ignores
the
context of the Kingston quote, fabricating a whole new meaning for it.
He
invokes Stalin's severity to support his own belief (documented on
this
newsgroup) that Botvinnik did not defy Stalin, yet he wants to label
Kingston
"silly" because Kingston wonders if Botvinnik had the wherewithal to
defy Stalin.

Kingston finds it "hard to believe" that Botvinnik might have defied
Stalin,
and Parr says "Botvinnik ... had everything to gain by complying and
everything
to lose by not complying" with Stalin. Yet according to Parr, Kingston
is being
"silly" while Parr is showing superior knowledge, education and
intellect. Wow.

3. Parr insults my educational level, about which he knows nothing,
and refers
to Kingston (and many others) by the charming term "ratpacker." Ad
hominem
attacks, unfounded gratuitous insults, and juvenile epithets - this is
rhetoric at its best!

The bizarre thing is that, as far as I can tell, Parr and Kingston
both hold
a very negative view of Stalin, yet Parr is not content - even where
someone
agrees with him, Parr must prove that Parr is superior, even if it
means
fabricating differences.

What drives Parr to these extremes of petty demagoguery I cannot
imagine. In
any event, they merit no further response.

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
. ..
Chess One wrote:

I feared Larry Parr would be so slaughtered by Taylor Kingston's reply
that he would crack a rib laughing, and have to swear off the newsgroup
for a month unless he cracked another one. Then I could come in with what
Russians themselves actually say about the issue, and begine to cite from
Bronstein, Taimanov, Roschal, Gulko, Khalifman, and so on, to the
'scholars' who ...

if they exist

... who won't /care/ to look.

Phil Innes

Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know what
the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If you have
the time, the inclination and their comments are available in English.

I do have them, and your curiosity credits you as normally intelligent. They
are not in the slightest bit strange to normal investigative intelligence,
and what is raised here, is by those people who are otherwise.

It is their contention, that while they might do their own research, by
reading on the subject they espouse, or even after direct inquiry
[references provided to them], Soviet 'fixing' does not exist.

Instead of asking me after entirely normative reports on this subject -by
scholars - how come you do not ask those who have, rightly or wrongly,
obtained a deviant understanding? To report what is normal to those who
cannot declare it as such, is a great task. You will note in the Kingston
communication in response to Larry Parr he was unable to name his nouns -
which is to say, some coteries of expertise exists in his opinion, and I ask
who they are and what they think, and what this is to him?

He is unlikely able to make an acuitous response.

Otherwise this course of study is far too high for Soviet-Chess 101, indeed,
those who do not do their homework will never attain the master's class in a
way enabling them to even understand its precepts.

Phil Innes



Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Look under the headings "Keres and Whyld" and "The Botvinnik
Interview."
Neither Evans nor I was aware of these statements when our
respective articles on the Keres case appeared (10/1996 for Evans,
5/1998 for mine). The Botvinnik interview took place in 1991, but was
published only in a Dutch weekly magazine not devoted to chess, and so
remained obscure until it was translated to English and posted on Tim
Krabbé's web-site in December 1999.
I had been alerted to the possibility by Bernard Cafferty in (as I
recall) 1999, that a friend of his, whom I suspected was Ken Whyld,
knew something important, but Cafferty did not go into specifics at
that time. The Whyld statement did not appear until June 2000, again
on Krabbé's web-site. Knowing my interest in Keres, Krabbé notified me
as soon as he had posted them. Whyld and I later discussed his
encounter with Keres at greater length by e-mail.
It was these statements by Botvinnik and Whyld, more than anything
else, and not any of Evans' arguments or "evidence," that inclined me
to believe that at least indirect pressure, in effect at least
tantamount to coercion, had been applied to Keres, and prompted me to
write the article in the above link. Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.

**Really? If the principals are complicit, then are they not //likely//
compromised?

**And the very first time to wrote to me was on this subject - looking for
material to refute Laurie - and I informed you that very serious Russian
opinion thinks as Laurie and Evans do. That you chose to ignore this, even
knowing subsequently that your future interviewee was thought to - to put
it politiely - to gloss the issue, and less politely - to lie, and that you
were provided with the sources of those who thought so - but in your own
words, 'could not think of any questions to ask them', is merely infamous!
That is not scholarly!

**Why you expose yourself to such suppositional material as above without
any contextual understanding is your own business - but it is not chess
history. It was some form of opportunism to do with your contacts. It is
insensible.

Since the events in question occurred nearly 60 years ago, very few
people are still around with anything like first-hand knowledge.

**And the few that are, were identified to you, and you declined my
introcuction to speak with them!

Of
the Hague-Moscow contestants, Smyslov is the lone survivor. I am not
aware that he has ever made any statement supporting the coercion
thesis. I do know that when GM David Bronstein wrote an article
claiming tampering at the 1953 Candidates Tournament (which Smyslov
won), Smyslov took great umbrage.

**Yes he did, but do you know that Roschal invited that commentary by
Bronstein, since he too knew what was what. It is generally considered that
Bronstein's indifference to 'fixing' is unimpeachable. You want to accuse
him too?

Another Soviet GM of the period,
Yuri Averbakh, is on record as saying coercion did not occur.

**Is this not the gentleman that I suggested to you may not be telling the
truth, by way of 2 Russian sources? Did he tell the truth about his
anti-semitic activities on behalf of the KGB? Have you still not read
Gulko's testimony?

So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.

**You should not write on subjects where you understand so very little, and
you should protest not at all when serious testimony is offered - especially
since you seem to prefer not to notice that. Above all, you should not
contest any issues with people who have first hand experience of it, which
is what you have done, and cannot admit their worth, compared with your,
what? A California orientation to 'on record' which is a sound-bite from the
active agent of suppression of chess players in Russia, and not asking him a
tough question about 'his record'?

pfft! Parr is right. You rather admire the Devil, no?

Phil Innes

EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, DECEMBER 2004 (page 42)

BOTVINNIK AND KERES (Cont.)

GM Raymond Keene
London, England

Q. Last May a reader cited Harry Golombek's WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP
1948. It was reissued in 2002 as part of a series of classic chess
books (www.hardingesimpole.co.uk) and I wrote the jacket blurb:

'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
epicentre of all the action. Here he annotates every game and follows
every nuance. An International Master and British Champion, Golombek
had a fluent knowledge of Russian and was alert to every key variation
and possibility. Here are all the games, annotated in detail, of an
historic and controversial event. Readers can make up their own minds
on the evidence -- was Botvinnik the dominating titan of his day or
was his triumph founded on the elimination of a dangerous rival and on
political favouritism extended by the most powerful man in the Soviet
Empire?

"Mikhail Botvinnik, disciple of Josef Stalin and iron man of Soviet
chess, seized the chess crown in 1948 in the 'famous five' Match
Tournament. This was held to settle the question of the World
Championship after reigning champion Alexander Alekhine had died in
possession of the title. 1948 ushered in a long period of control of
world chess by FIDE, the world chess federation, backed, in turn, by
the powerful chess federation of the USSR , the land where chess had
become the iconic national game. Botvinnik dominated the field, easily
outdistancing his main rivals Smyslov, Reshevsky and Keres, while the
hapless Dr. Max Euwe, former world champion, whose sudden and dramatic
descent from world class chess was made brutally apparent by this
event, was left trailing in last place, 6.5 points adrift of the
field.

Inspiration and controversy alike still surround the 1948 match
tournament. At a time when more than one player claims to be world
champion and rival organisations have their own champions, the
resolution brought about by the match tournament is often regarded as
the holy grail of world title definition. Yet critics also persist in
seeing this system as flawed. Why for example was the Polish
grandmaster Miguel Najdorf not invited when US Grandmaster Reuben Fine
dropped out? Was it because Najdorf had defeated Botvinnik in a recent
tournament? Worse, unsubstantiated rumours abound that Paul Keres, an
enthusiastic participant in Nazi-controlled competitions of the early
1940s, came under pressure to lose games in Moscow -- the very heart
of the Soviet Empire -- to Stalin's protégé Botvinnik."

Many people were liquidated or sent to gulags for doing far less than
Keres did during the war, and it would have been a catastrophe for him
if he had somehow stopped Botvinnik and Reshevsky triumphed. For what
it's worth my opinion is Keres did throw the first four games, but I
wonder if Botvinnik knew it.

A. What Golombek wrote was pretty damning -- he was incredulous about
some of Keres' moves -- but to directly accuse the Soviets of cheating
would have been professional suicide for him in those days. See THE
TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES where I pinpoint the suspicious moves (Chess
Life, October 1996).

One final point. At the 1952 Olympiad in Helsinki -- the first time
the USSR ever entered a squad -- Keres, Smyslov, Bronstein, Geller,
Boleslavsky and Kotov held a majority vote to exclude Botvinnik. It
was outrageous to oust the world champion from their team and
Botvinnik complained bitterly about this conspiracy. Did Keres, who
played board one, thus taste some revenge for 1948? Yet they later
enjoyed friendly relations.




Chess One wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 12:13 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Dear Mr. Innes,

I may not be one of the aforesaid scholars, but I am curious to know
what the Russian GMs you cited have to say about this incident... If
you have the time, the inclination and their comments are available in
English.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Rev. Walker, in this matter the two most relevant GMs are Keres and
Botvinnik themselves, and you can read what I consider to be their
most relevant comments he

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles165.pdf

Look under the headings "Keres and Whyld" and "The Botvinnik
Interview."
Neither Evans nor I was aware of these statements when our
respective articles on the Keres case appeared (10/1996 for Evans,
5/1998 for mine). The Botvinnik interview took place in 1991, but was
published only in a Dutch weekly magazine not devoted to chess, and so
remained obscure until it was translated to English and posted on Tim
Krabbé's web-site in December 1999.
I had been alerted to the possibility by Bernard Cafferty in (as I
recall) 1999, that a friend of his, whom I suspected was Ken Whyld,
knew something important, but Cafferty did not go into specifics at
that time. The Whyld statement did not appear until June 2000, again
on Krabbé's web-site. Knowing my interest in Keres, Krabbé notified me
as soon as he had posted them. Whyld and I later discussed his
encounter with Keres at greater length by e-mail.
It was these statements by Botvinnik and Whyld, more than anything
else, and not any of Evans' arguments or "evidence," that inclined me
to believe that at least indirect pressure, in effect at least
tantamount to coercion, had been applied to Keres, and prompted me to
write the article in the above link. Various Russian and/or Soviet GMs
may know various things and have various opinions, and should by all
means be heard, but it seems unlikely that anything they might say
will carry more weight than the testimony of the two principals.

**Really? If the principals are complicit, then are they not //likely//
compromised?

**And the very first time to wrote to me was on this subject - looking for
material to refute Laurie - and I informed you that very serious Russian
opinion thinks as Laurie and Evans do. That you chose to ignore this, even
knowing subsequently that your future interviewee was thought to - to put
it politiely - to gloss the issue, and less politely - to lie, and that you
were provided with the sources of those who thought so - but in your own
words, 'could not think of any questions to ask them', is merely infamous!
That is not scholarly!

**Why you expose yourself to such suppositional material as above without
any contextual understanding is your own business - but it is not chess
history. It was some form of opportunism to do with your contacts. It is
insensible.

Since the events in question occurred nearly 60 years ago, very few
people are still around with anything like first-hand knowledge.

**And the few that are, were identified to you, and you declined my
introcuction to speak with them!

Of
the Hague-Moscow contestants, Smyslov is the lone survivor. I am not
aware that he has ever made any statement supporting the coercion
thesis. I do know that when GM David Bronstein wrote an article
claiming tampering at the 1953 Candidates Tournament (which Smyslov
won), Smyslov took great umbrage.

**Yes he did, but do you know that Roschal invited that commentary by
Bronstein, since he too knew what was what. It is generally considered that
Bronstein's indifference to 'fixing' is unimpeachable. You want to accuse
him too?

Another Soviet GM of the period,
Yuri Averbakh, is on record as saying coercion did not occur.

**Is this not the gentleman that I suggested to you may not be telling the
truth, by way of 2 Russian sources? Did he tell the truth about his
anti-semitic activities on behalf of the KGB? Have you still not read
Gulko's testimony?

So even
Soviet contemporaries of Keres and Botvinnik have expressed
conflicting views.

**You should not write on subjects where you understand so very little, and
you should protest not at all when serious testimony is offered - especially
since you seem to prefer not to notice that. Above all, you should not
contest any issues with people who have first hand experience of it, which
is what you have done, and cannot admit their worth, compared with your,
what? A California orientation to 'on record' which is a sound-bite from the
active agent of suppression of chess players in Russia, and not asking him a
tough question about 'his record'?

pfft! Parr is right. You rather admire the Devil, no?

Phil Innes

On Nov 10, 5:23 pm, " wrote:
EVANS ON CHESS, CHESS LIFE, DECEMBER 2004 (page 42)

BOTVINNIK AND KERES (Cont.)

GM Raymond Keene
London, England

Q. Last May a reader cited Harry Golombek's WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP
1948. It was reissued in 2002 as part of a series of classic chess
books (www.hardingesimpole.co.uk) and I wrote the jacket blurb:

'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
epicentre of all the action.'

Another example of Parr's, Evans', and Keene's frequent factual
errors. As pointed out he

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter03.html

Golombek himself made very clear he did *_not_* go to Moscow in 1948
and therefore was *_not_* "on the spot throughout." To quote Chess
Notes #3482 in full:

Regarding Harry Golombek's book on the 1948 world championship match-
tournament in The Hague and Moscow, the following untrue statement is
quoted on page 42 of the December 2004 Chess Life:

'The author of this book was on the spot throughout and at the very
epicenter of all the action.'

In reality, Golombek was not present in Moscow at all, as he explained
in his introduction to the 1982 BCM edition of the book:

'The time came when the event moved off to Moscow. I endeavoured to
follow the big group of Dutch and Russian chess masters and officials
but was unable to gain a visa. [H.G. then gave further details.]

So I had to be content with studying the games of the Russian section
of the tournament in the Soviet bulletins. Fortunately, these were
very well annotated and there were also quite elaborate descriptions
of the playing hall and the various circumstances that attend a great
tournament.'

** end Chess Notes excerpt **

All we have here is another example of Keene's habitual
carelessness and failure to check the facts, said gaffe then being
eagerly accepted and quoted by Parr and Evans because it suits their
rhetorical purposes.

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...

It is an interesting incident. If anyone has information from other
Russian/Soviet GMs, I would like know.


Bronstein of course is published in Russian in the magazine"64". He directly
accused Smyslov.

To find material in English, you might consult the record here

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...s/Taimanov.htm

I interviewed Taimanov, with the very able help of Dr. Bill Hyde. This reply
is rather different than others, since it indicates systemic corruption -
and the very high degree of politics associated with Soviet chess.

You might note his reference to his own visit to Liverpool, and who signed
the papers permitting him to go.

In terms of Zurich 53, he emphasises the point, referencing Bronstein's
comments about 'backstage maneuvers'.

And here are specifics: "at that time I did not know anything about it - as
we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the
izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut). All this was usually
done secretly. The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the
threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e.
to not aspire to win against them. And to play with special attention
versus our leader's chief competitors."

---

(((An aside, the very next question cites Larry Parr - and rather than duck
the question, as it may immediately seem, MT makes an indirect answer, and
refers to his own book, "I was Fischer's Victim" with its new chapter.

The book talk about playing Fischer but also his official treatment
afterwards.I am unsure the new material has been released in the West, in
English [and my own copy is in Russian]. I did have a copy of it sent to Ray
Keene in London, since Ray has stood up for an publicised the plight of
Refuseniks in Russia.

The new chapter is the KGB archive maintained on Taimanov.)))

--

What a pity this book is also not in English:

"Now more often correspondents are curious about my meetings with great
persons of the last century whom I had the good luck to meet. About
W.Churchill, N.Khrushchev, F.Castro, E.Che Guevara; and D.Shostakovich,
D.Ojstrah, M.Rostropovich; and M.Botvinnik, R.Fischer, T.Petrosian. I
retell all this in my (Russian language) book "Remembering the most -
most"."

---
There is a collation of about 4,000 downloadable Taimanov games at the tale
of the article, and one more thing! I also asked Mark if he would annotate a
lost game. And he chose his, with Fischer, game 3 - and that incredible
position!

In chatting about it with him I accused he and Fischer of creating the most
complex position in the entire C20th, and he replied that not even Kasparov
could solve it, nor any super computer, and not for 25 years...

Then he asked me a question: he said,

"What do you think was going through Fischer's mind in those 70 minutes?
Did he solve it?"

I sent that question to Fischer, but that's another story.

Cordially, Phil Innes



Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.'
-- (Exodus 23:2)
'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
society.'
-- Jiddu Krishnamurti

"Chess One" wrote in message
news:ORBZi.1812$Z01.1016@trndny01...

--

What a pity this book is also not in English:

"Now more often correspondents are curious about my meetings with great
persons of the last century whom I had the good luck to meet. About
W.Churchill, N.Khrushchev, F.Castro, E.Che Guevara; and D.Shostakovich,
D.Ojstrah, M.Rostropovich; and M.Botvinnik, R.Fischer, T.Petrosian. I
retell all this in my (Russian language) book "Remembering the most -
most"."

And what a pity that Larry Evans is also not in English on similar
subjects! - he has been toying for years with my requests for a fullsome
report of his own encounter with F.Castro, E.Che Guevara...

In fact, in the double-Phillips CD edition of Taimanov's music, there they
all are! Taimanov is playing Evans, and the unmistakable and iconic image of
the poster-child of the left in the 60s watching the game is Che.

I think it was at this time that Dr. Guevara joked that if he wasn't tempted
to go and start a new revolution in Bolivia or someplace, he would seriously
consider becoming a fulltime chess player.

I think Evans needs a good co-author to get this material out, and I
recommend to him, Denker's.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
It is very well known that "Edward Winter" is obsessed with Raymond
Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.

In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.

(I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)

I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him.

Unlike the others mentioned, you are a *special* case Sam!

You frequently doubt the very existance of people, even those you have met,
and are otherwise well-known.

I think Winter is not unknown, and one of the principals of Ray Keene's
publisher went to school with him - and regularly played chess with him.
Winter is not a strong chess player.

Detectives have even
staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.

He is English not American, and some English people are not nearly so
forward as some Americans! I encountered him last making inquires of Adorjan
about another player not mentioned here. But that is private correspondence.

Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.

laugh - let me assure you that this is not so - well, 'assure' is a
nonsensical term to use in writing to you, since you want to put your own
fingers in the wounds, no?

I think that's okay, it has a precedent. But it doesn't mean that everyone
else is so er, kinesthetic.

Phil Innes


Sam Sloan

KERES WAS COERCED

"When the war in Europe ended he [Keres] returned home, but not before
making a deal with the Soviet authorities. He would be 'forgiven' for
playing in German tournaments, i.e. collaborating with the enemy. In
return Keres promised not to interfere with Botvinnik's challenge to
Alekhine. In 1947, at his second attempt, Keres won the USSR
Championship (+10 =8 -1)." -- THE OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS by Hooper
& Whyld (page 163, first edition 1984)

"Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic -- the Evans article
is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time." -- Taylor Kingston on this
forum (11/10/07)

That's a far cry from what this gent wrote in his initial letter to
the editor of Chess Life after reading THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM
Larry Evans:

"Larry Evans' article The Tragedy of Pal Keres in your October 1996
issue was one of the best pieces of chess historical writing you've
ever run. Evans's analysis of games from the 1948 world championship
makes a strong case that Keres' failure, and Botvinnik's consequent
success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
authorities.

"There are still many unanswered questions, however. Evans states that
newly discovered once secret Soviet files shows that Keres was forced
to abandon his quest for the world title. Yet you printed only one
brief excerpt from these, an excerpt which did not prove Evans' case.
Is there a smoking gun, a document stating clearly that Keres was told
'lose or we will kill you'? Did this ban on winning the title apply
only to the 1948 tournamwent, or for all time? If the latter, it would
explain Keres' many second-place finishes in Candidates tournaments.
Pewrhaps most importantly, how much did Botvinnik know? It is almost
impossible to believe that he was merely an innocent beneficiary, that
Keres was coerced without Botvinnik's knowledge and consent.

"Between Evans' article and GM David Bronstein's recent book THE
SORCERER'S APPRENTICE, a new and extremely ugly picture of Botvinnik
is emerging, that of a cheat and hypocrite, who used his influence
with Soviet authorities and with FIDE to subvert competitors and set
himself up as a tin god of chess. CHESS LIFE should investigate
further and find out the facts. We could be on the verge of uncovering
one of the major scandals in chess history." -- Taylor Kingston,
Shelburne, VT

WHAT KINGSTON NOW IGNORES

The gent no longer bothers to deny that he wrote here under bogus
screen names such as Xylothist, pretending to be someone else IN ORDER
TO PRAISE HIS OWN ARGUMENTS.

The gent also fails to explain his cunning lie in a "confidential"
letter to playwright Richard Laurie that he was unaware of the dispute
between Winter and Evans when he was fully aware of this dispute and
had already sided with Winter.

That is low stuff, suggesting still worse things are possible from our
NMnot.

Yours, Larry Parr



Chess One wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
It is very well known that "Edward Winter" is obsessed with Raymond
Keene and has been attacking him incessantly since the late 1970s.

In the last decade or so Winter has added other names to his list of
people he attacks all the time. These include especially Larry Evans,
Eric Schiller and most recently Sam Sloan.

(I am honored to have my name added to such a distinguished list.)

I have put quotation marks around the name "Edward Winter" because
nobody knows who he is. Nobody has ever seen him.

Unlike the others mentioned, you are a *special* case Sam!

You frequently doubt the very existance of people, even those you have met,
and are otherwise well-known.

I think Winter is not unknown, and one of the principals of Ray Keene's
publisher went to school with him - and regularly played chess with him.
Winter is not a strong chess player.

Detectives have even
staked out around the house in Switzerland where he supposedly
receives his mail and nobody has been able to find him there.

He is English not American, and some English people are not nearly so
forward as some Americans! I encountered him last making inquires of Adorjan
about another player not mentioned here. But that is private correspondence.

Taylor Kingston shares some remarkable similarities with Edward
Winter. Both are English. Both have the same enemies list. This has
led me to wonder that they might even be the same person.

laugh - let me assure you that this is not so - well, 'assure' is a
nonsensical term to use in writing to you, since you want to put your own
fingers in the wounds, no?

I think that's okay, it has a precedent. But it doesn't mean that everyone
else is so er, kinesthetic.

Phil Innes


Sam Sloan

On Nov 11, 9:02 am, " wrote:

"Shoddy research, selective bias, flawed logic -- the Evans article
is a travesty of historiograhy. That's why it has been ignored by
scholars. It's just not worth their time." -- Taylor Kingston on this
forum (11/10/07)

That's a far cry from what this gent wrote in his initial letter to
the editor of Chess Life after reading THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES by GM
Larry Evans:

"Larry Evans' article The Tragedy of Pal Keres in your October 1996
issue was one of the best pieces of chess historical writing you've
ever run. Evans's analysis of games from the 1948 world championship
makes a strong case that Keres' failure, and Botvinnik's consequent
success, were the result of coercion by Soviet
authorities.


Once I saw you start this thread, Larry, I knew it would be only a
matter of days before you trotted out that dead horse of a letter, to
flog it yet again. RGC veterans know that this is just one of your
standard dodges, but for those new to the group, let me (for the
unpteenth time) set the record straight, by quoting from Winter's "The
Facts About Larry Evans" ( http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html
), which in turn quotes me:

Page 60 of the Autumn 1999 Kingpin carried a brief reply from Evans.
Although, in reality, he replied to virtually nothing, he did dispute
Watson's description of Taylor Kingston as a critic of Evans' claims
(claims made, wrote Watson, without 'even a shred of actual evidence')
that Keres was forced to throw his games to Botvinnik in the 1948
world championship event. In his 'reply' Evans triumphantly quoted a
supportive letter from Kingston which had been published in his August
1997 Chess Life column. A devastating blow? Yes, but against Evans.
That became manifest when the Spring 2000 issue of Kingpin (page 64)
published this response from Taylor Kingston:

'I did indeed write the letter Evans quotes, but that was before I
researched and analyzed his article in detail. On deeper examination I
found his logic and evidence to be highly questionable. I made this
quite clear, both publicly in my article "Keres and Botvinnik: A
Survey of the Evidence" (CL 5/98) and privately in letters to Evans
himself. For Evans to say or even imply that I now support him, is
amazingly, grossly dishonest.'

'Amazingly, grossly dishonest.' Somehow such words keep coming back in
any discerning scrutiny of Evans' writings. In 2000 Yasser Seirawan
published on his Inside Chess website a strongly-worded open letter
'Enough is Enough' which called on the FIDE President to resign. In a
follow-up article (also on-line at Inside Chess) Seirawan reviewed the
reaction, including that of the 'long time rabid critic of FIDE, GM
Evans'. After pointing out how Evans had misrepresented his open
letter, Seirawan concluded: 'Experienced Evans-watchers know that it
is the kind of untruth and distortion that is endemic in him.'

*** end Chess Notes excerpt ***

Then, of course, we have Larry Parr's *_own_* censure of Evans for
flaunting my letter even *_after_* he knew I had repudiated it. As
Parr posted here on 25 August 2001:

The unpleasant truth is that GM Evans is guilty of something worse
than dishonesty ...GM Evans' transgression is to have misrepresented
Mr. Kingston's position out of polemical incompetence. Moreover, this
incompetence cannot be excused ...Incompetence can be more morally
odious, when it is utterly inexcusable, than conventional forms of
dishonesty ... GM Evans' high-handed supposition only compounds his
earlier "dishonesty of inexcusable incompetence." He shattered the
rules of honest controversy. He ought never to have made this
assumption, which was all the worse to do, because IT SERVED HIS
POLEMICAL PURPOSES OF THE MOMENT.

*** He was obliged - no strike that, *_absolutely required as a matter
of honor_* - to contact Mr. Kingston before using the man's initial
letter of praise for his "The Tragedy of Paul Keres." *** (emphasis
added)

*** end Parr excerpt ***

Once again it is demonstrated, exceptionally clearly in this case,
that with Parr ethical sentiments, such as those expressed above, are
mere chance aberrations.